Saturday, November 5, 2016

You heard it first on MilPub

This morning, while enjoying our coffee, the view of the beautiful Agean and reading our emails and news, Mrs Av looked up from her tablet and said, "This article from Reuters sounds just like something you told me that one of your friends on that military blog said a while back."

And so, being a dutiful husband, I switched from reading an delightful email from a high school classmate to my Reuters app, and lo and behold, found that Bill Schneider was saying what either Publius or FDChief had said a few years back.  The GOP's reaction to losing a Presidential election is to immediately begin trying to "nullify" the President, except in Schneider's terms, paint the President as "illegitimate".

In Bill Clinton's case, Ken Starr spend millions to finally expose a truly criminal attempt by Clinton to cover up that he got a blowjob from a White House intern.  Yup, lying about a consensual, adulterous blowjob is a high crime or misdemeanor worthy of tying up the Congress for an impeachment proceeding.  I'm sure that Baylor coeds wished that sexual assault by football players rose to the same level of concern from Mr Starr.

Barak Obama faced the same nullification attempts from the GOP. First was the "Birther" movement.  Then, of course, was Mitch McConnell's infamous statement that it was the first priority of the GOP Senate to insure that Obama was a one term President.  And, of course, the ludicrous claim by the GOP that a President cannot nominate a Supreme Court Justice in the final year of his term.

And now, we have nullification before the election is even held.  John McCain has publicly stated that his party “will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were President, would put up.”  In short, the GOP has openly declared that the legitimate, Constitutional requirement that a President will nominate SCOTUS Justices is null and void when that President is a Democrat.  So it is not the merits of the candidate that should be considered, but the person making the nomination that is the deciding factor.

And, of course, there is the growing chorus of GOP claims that if the GOP candidate loses the election, it is because the system is "rigged", and voter fraud stole it, but if the GOP candidate wins, well that's because there was no fraud.  Claims from the masters of voter suppression and gerrymandering.   Will Ken Starr return from retirement and shame to investigate her if she wins?

So, if Clinton wins, the stage to nullify her Presidency  has already been set.

What a great country.


  1. Mrs Aviator has a sharp eye. You are a lucky man Al.

  2. Me wonder's how it got there in the first place?

    In vein with what is being discussed, apparently the fix is already in to for the delegitimatizing of Ms. Clinton's win...if she wins as there are now "conservative" web sites showing a "overwhelming win" for Mr. Trump. And by that I mean the "red vs blue" modeling standard shows an almost all red America.

    And I think this goes hand in hand with the actions of the Republican strategy which is to choke the living hell out of any form of governance, or attempts at governance.

    The amusing thing is that my Republican friends are in complete denial, "Trump isn't a real Republican" and "Trump doesn't represent Republican ideals" to which I respond, "and how did he become the nominee for the Republican party, then?"

    You see, I think there is more going on that we're seeing here, and I suspect, with limited proof, that the larger individuals of the Republican base's membership every year are inching, albeit incrementally towards a "strong leader" form of government...which in polite company of cigars, snifters of Brandy, and smoking rooms would be called a Dictatorship.

    And considering the lack of willingness to research the propaganda, or any form of due-diligence on the part of the Republican membership in regards to the actual qualification of what is being presented seems to point to that inevitable conclusion which is:

    That the Republican Party is trying, adroitly, to twist the psyche of their base to want a Dictatorship by proving, through obstructionism, and propaganda that our current form of Government is unworkable, and only a strong leader can make government work like it suppose to.


    1. sheer-

      I'm not convinced the GOP wants a dictatorship as much as political hegemony. I think Carl Rove openly spoke of such a notion. It's the people Trump panders to that appear to want an authoritarian President as the solution to our current form of government. Trump does not speak in terms of "supporting legislation", he says "I will", whether or not the Office of the President has the Constitutional power to do so.

      Keep in mind that Trump is not a product of the RNC, but the people he mobilized in the primaries.

    2. What Al said, sheerah. One of the wingnut pundits was accused of refusing to accept the legitimacy of a Democratic president getting to appoint a Democratic justice to SCOTUS and Douthat replied, no, it's the legitimacy of your (liberal) jurisprudence that is illegitimate.

      How the hell do you govern a nation when one political element doesn't just disagree with another major element but denies the utter validity of the other's point of view?

      And this is NOT Trump. This is the RNC Republicans; Ryan and McConnell and McCain.

      I hate what they stand for. But not so much so that if they can convince 50% plus one of my fellow citizens that our country should be that way that I'm going to prefer to break our governing norms rather than accept their rule. The horrible realization is emerging that the bulk of the GOP disagrees; they would rather rule in Hell than serve in a liberal US.

    3. "Keep in mind that Trump is not a product of the RNC, but the people he mobilized in the primaries"

      Oh Al...must I?

      Al, with great respect to you, and your post, and your viewpoint..Donald Trump was voted by the majority in an established Political Party known as the Republican Party, aka GOP.

      Notwithstanding the usual bourgeoisie sadism that comes with a desire to just watch the world burn while others dance to the fiddle, it wasn't the Democrats who elevated Mr. Trump as the heir apparent to all things Republicaniness.

      And it wasn't the libertarians, who, in a desire to free-market everything that exchanges currency have thrown up their hands in confusion since their choice seems to lose an audience once he gets to the second paragraph of his speeches.

      And certainly wasn't the green party, who amazingly have been able to establish a presence in the media, good on them, though I question their pick as representative.

      Which, kinda leaves the Republican Party holding the, establishing that...if you recall those halycon years where we stood together, mouths a gaped at what idiocy The W would utter, there was as certain talking head whom we'll call John Bolton would be funny if it were just a comedy skit,'s not so its not was I?
      John Bolton uttered this famous line..."President Bush represents the people who elected him."

      Uh-oops! Let that one slip out, didn't we!

      But now, that little public slip of the tongue makes sense, herein lies the issue...because if we go back...oh, eight years when our darling current super-star President of "Rule of Law...wait, I said what again?" Obama was running for the office of President of the United States a certain opponents lackey coughed up the hair-ball of "real America."

      Still with me?

      Because really, that is how the GOP has trained their attack dogs...I meant, how the Republicans have framed the narrative of disagreement for their party members as to how we view our country and the denizens within.

      The fact that now we have a polarized country where it's "The good, God fearing, Real Americans who show their true Christian Heritage by Voting Republican...
      Those heathen, swill selling, godless nobody libtards, and their ilk who would rape your cattle, scare the women, and diddle your apple pie while they piss on all that is holy, good, and godly with their foul, communist/socialist, anti-free-market, abortion loving homosexuals who care nothing about America but their own socialist take away and give to everyone else political policies!

      So...Trump IS a product of the I'll grant you this...the GOP hierarchy may not have intended this kind...uh...well, individual-person/personal-outcome...but they own the results of his rise in their party because they paved the way with all their past polarization which they thought was all "fun and games, come on, its just political theater!"

      What the GOP didn't count on was their base taking them literally and seriously...and thus, voila, Mr. Trump floats to the top of their little cess pool they have joyously dug and filled, now their gonna act surprised that a "log" of Trumpiness magnitude has found it's way into their fetid swamp.

      Sorry Al, but Trump is the product of the RNC's carelessness, and I'll throw in callousness as well.

    4. Steve- I would accept "byproduct" in a heartbeat. The RNC has no control over who throws their hat in the ring under their banner. The RNC actively resisted, and fought Trump. You can definitely call Trump a product of populism, something which the RNC tolerated to pander to the wingnuts.

      I am reminded of the old Texas Aggie joke: "Did you hear about the Aggie that was so dump, two other Aggies actually noticed?"

      So I say "byproduct" vs "product" simply because there weren't two Republicans un-dumb enough to see where the party's blind pursuit of votes at any cost was taking them.

    5. I see I have outed myself. was bound to happen...I've been known by sheerahkahn for far to long. I will own it as I think my time has come.

      I think by-product works...yes, I can see that, and it makes sense.

  3. Al,
    AS an o6 if you were caught in a web of lies concerning adulterous blow jobs with somebody in your chain what would have happened to your career?
    whats good for the commander is good for the corps.
    jim hruska

    1. This is why we can't have good things, Jim. Al posts about a constitutional crisis and your reply is hung up on blowjobs. The GOP has been playing that, and you, like a violin. Wars, and plutocracy, and ratfucking and...wait! Was that a lie about a blowjob! Ooooh! Shiny pretty!

  4. Al,
    allow me to rephrase my question.
    if a 2lt in your unit were getting blowjobs(adulterous or otherwise) from a pv2 in the unit what would you do?
    jim hruska

    1. Well, jim, since the military is subject to the UCMJ, you know the answer.

      Civilians are not subject to the UCMJ, and the "criminality of the act" would depend on which state it occurred in. In 11 states, adultery is a misdemeanor offense, and in 5 others a felony. The other 32 states do not criminalize it. Adulterous blowjobs are completely legal in D.C.

      I don't know in which states Trump and Marla Maples were when they had openly adulterous relations, but as is the case with most adulterous couples, they were never criminally charged. If they had relations in NY or Florida, then Trump is an unindicted misdemeanor criminal. Their trysts in Colorado were perfectly legal.

    2. And Al is being gracious in not hammering on the ludicrous contrast between getting spun up over Clinton's lying about a hummer and getting impeached for it...and Dubya lying about a cabinet war or Ronnie lying about selling missiles to Iran.

      What if you were an O-6 and found your supply sergeant was selling your unit's small arms ammo to a Mexican druglord? Hmmm...

  5. The real problem, Al, isn't so much that the GOP is trying this. It's that there's no constitutional way to resolve it. The radical reactionaries that have brain-wormed into the corpse of Reaganism won't accept an America that is not headed to a New Gilded Age. There is no sign that they will relent.

    The last time this happened was in 1860, and we know the result.

    While I don't expect Civil War, I do expect a long-term breakdown of governance. And I give the GOP better than a 50-50 chance of running a better authoritarian next time promising to "Make America Work Again"...

    1. McCain's pledge to confirm no SCOTUS nominees, should Clinton win is definitely a Constitutional crisis, but it is far too complex for the great unwashed to understand. They are more concerned with "winning" than having a functional government. But even more fundamental, when a party's basic dogma is to reject the results of an election, democracy has died.

    2. In a bizarre sort of way I have more respect - more hatred, but more respect - for the people that committed treason in defense of slavery than I do a contemporary teahadi. Slavery was a despicable cause, but it was, at least, a huge moral issue, one that was impossible to compromise.

      What are the thundering issues over which these "constitutional conservatives" propose to run the ship of state onto the rocks rather than let her sail unto? Forcing Molly to carry to term? Ensuring Joe can buy his sixth AR-15 knockoff? Saving Grampy Gotrox from the Death Tax?

      That's it? "Give me flat tax or give me death!" just doesn't have that savor...

  6. Jim,

    Allow me to rephrase your question.

    If a Lt in your unit shirked combat duty, did not fulfill his training obligations, refused to take a mandatory physical, and had arrest for theft, disorderly conduct and DUI, what would you do?

    Or coming back to 2016:

    If a man in your unit played highschool & college basketball, football, squash and yet received a medical draft deferment although a doctor says he “will be the healthiest individual ever elected” - and then that man criticizes those who did serve in combat - what would you do?

  7. Al,
    so the question is=should the C in C be subject to the ucmj .?

    1. No that is not the question.

      The President may be the C in C, he is not a uniformed member of the Armed Forces, but rather, by Constitutional intent, the senior civilian executive overseeing the Armed Forces. In order for the Armed Forces to be under civilian control by and for "The People", an elected official would need to be the ultimate authority over them. Since the Office of the President is the only branch of government granted executive power by the Constitution (although many GOP members of Congress act otherwise), the Framers wisely placed command of the Armed Forces under POTUS, but did not make POTUS a member of the Armed Forces.

      But the Framers were also careful not to abridge the Legislative Branch's role, either. Thus, Congress has the authority to "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces", but still not command of such forces. Similarly, only Congress has the Constitutional authority to declare war, raise the forces to fight such war and fund those forces, but not the authority to command the forces sent to wage war.

      Now, we can, of course debate the many "undeclared wars" in which the US has engaged, but that is a very different subject versus POTUS being subject to the UCMJ.

    2. Shorter Al: no.

      And what the hell does this have to do with the post itself? I mean, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here - that you have an actual point apropos of Al's thesis - but it's kinda hard not to see this as just another GOP purple-heart-bandaid sort of maskirova. Bill Clinton's role in this election is the functional equivalent of Ladybird Johnson's in 1964; he's gonna host teas and cut ribbons on rec centers. Unless you're intent on ratfucking HRC why even bother?

      So...are you?

    3. I was trying to be polite, Chief. One of these days I guess I will just accept that not all Americans received a reasonable 9th Grade Social Studies education on the Constitution, or perhaps, didn't have a teacher as good as Dr Rodney Smith.

    4. Yeah...I tend to forget that, Al. Last night the Bride and I were lying on the sofa after the kiddos went to bed and I got started on the whole "The Senate not hearing Presidential SCOTUS nominations is a constitutional crisis" thing and mentioned FDR's court-packing. She was completely adrift. "C'mon..." I said, "FDR...New Deal...Blue Eagle...SCOTUS defeats...13 don't know this stuff?"

      She didn't. Then I went on to make some comment about how FDR lost in Congress but won in the end because he ended up appointing something like eight justices, and her reply was "What...did some serial killer take them out..?" and I just looked at her, like, hunh?

      "Nope. He just out-waited them all. Because of the whole four-term thing."

      "What?" she said.

      "Ummm...FDR was elected four times. You know that, right?"


      "Oh. Seriously? You don't..?" (long pause) "What the hell were your high school U.S. history teachers doing?"

      "I didn't have high school U.S. history..."

      So, yeah. I forget that not everyone is a history- and politics-nut like I am (and, presumably, a bunch of us here are).